marking criteria & feedback forms 2015-16 …...department of life sciences (biology and...

Department of Life Sciences (Biology and Biochemistry degrees) – Imperial College London Marks are provisional. They may be subject to penalties and/or moderation, and are always subject to approval by the relevant Board of Examiners.

Marking criteria & feedback forms 2015-16 Department of Life Sciences Biology and Biochemistry degrees

Contents

Examination and coursework essays: assessment criteria ........................................................................................... 2

Coursework essays: cover sheet and feedback ............................................................................................................ 3

Laboratory reports: assessment criteria ....................................................................................................................... 4

Laboratory reports: cover sheet and feedback............................................................................................................. 5

Presentations: assessment criteria ............................................................................................................................... 6

Presentations: feedback ............................................................................................................................................... 7

Final-year Research Project and Literature Project oral vivas: assessment criteria...................................................... 8

Final-year Research Project and Literature Project presentation and oral viva: report ............................................... 8

Posters: assessment criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Posters: feedback ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

Dissertations (including second-year Tutored Dissertation and final-year Literature Project): assessment criteria . 13

Second-year Tutored Dissertation: Tutor’s feedback ................................................................................................. 14

Second-year Tutored Dissertation: Second Marker’s feedback .................................................................................. 16

Final-year Literature Project thesis: Supervisor/Examiner's report ............................................................................ 18

Research project theses (including final-year Research Project): assessment criteria ............................................... 19

Final-year Research Project thesis: Examiner’s report................................................................................................ 20

Final-year Research Project thesis and lab/field-work performance: Supervisor’s report ......................................... 22

Final year Literature Project Lay Summary for Science Communication: assessment criteria ................................... 24

Final year Literature Project Lay Summary for Science Communication: report ........................................................ 25

Year in Industry placement account: assessment criteria .......................................................................................... 26

Year in Europe cultural report: assessment criteria.................................................................................................... 27


Examination and coursework essays: assessment criteria Account will be taken of what can reasonably be expected in the time available for examination essays, within a

word limit for an essay or dissertation, and for the year of the degree. In particular, the amount of supplementary

material* and degree of independent critical*, analytical* or synthetic* treatment expected of a final year student

are much higher than that expected in Year 1.

Footnotes: Supplementary material includes outside reading and material from other courses. For first- and second-year students, textbooks

are an acceptable source of outside reading; for final-year students, outside reading should normally come from journal articles or other peer-

reviewed publications. Analytical = breaking a concept down into its parts and examining their inter-relationships, e.g. comparing and

contrasting two models. Critical = judging a hypothesis or conclusion by examining the validity of the evidence presented for it, e.g. evaluating

two competing models. Synthetic = integrating concepts from several sources. e.g. discussing relevant outside reading, or combining material

across several lectures or courses into a coherent or original whole. Comprehension = understanding of the meaning of information, e.g.

explaining how one concept follows logically from another. Application = use of knowledge outside of the situation in which it was learnt, e.g.

applying a model to a novel situation, or carrying out an appropriate manipulation of a data set.

Class % Criteria 1st 100 Answer is a masterful exposition of the subject, showing command of the relevant concepts and facts,

normally including considerable well-chosen supplementary material*, and providing very good

independent critical*, analytical* and/or synthetic* treatment of the information. 95

90

85 Answer gives an excellent account of at virtually all of the expected relevant material. Shows excellent comprehension* and application* of the relevant concepts and facts. Provides consistently analytical*, critical* and/or synthetic* treatment of the information and/or includes considerable well-chosen supplementary material*.

80

76 Answer gives an excellent account of virtually all of the expected relevant material. Shows excellent comprehension* and application* of the relevant concepts and facts. In addition, provides some analytical*, critical* and/or synthetic* treatment of the information and/or includes some relevant supplementary material*.

72

2A 68 Answer gives a well-organised, mainly accurate and well-written account of the relevant concepts and facts, containing at least two-thirds of the expected relevant material. Demonstrates comprehension* and/or application* of the relevant concepts, and lacks significant errors of understanding. N.B. Coursework assignments must be written concisely with appropriate and basically correct use of references to attain a 2A mark or higher.

65

62

2B 58 Answer gives an account of at least one-half to two-thirds of the expected relevant material, but is marred by defective organisation, omissions or errors that indicate a lack of clear understanding of the concepts. N.B. Coursework assignments that are too long, poorly written, and/or that show inappropriate and/or incorrect use of references are unlikely to be marked above a 2B.

55

52

3rd 48 Answer presents one-third to one-half of the expected relevant material, but is marred by major errors, brevity, and/or irrelevance.

45

42

Fail 38 Answer presents one-quarter to one-third of the expected relevant material (e.g. a sketchy outline of a correct answer), but is marred by major errors or brevity.

35

30

25 Answer presents more than three concepts or facts but less than one-quarter of the expected relevant material and is too inaccurate, irrelevant, or brief to indicate more than a vague understanding of the question. 20

15 Answer presents only three concepts or facts that are correct and relevant to the question.

10 Answer presents only two concepts or facts that are correct and relevant to the question.

5 Answer presents at most one concept or fact that is correct and relevant to the question.

0 Answer contains nothing that is both correct and relevant to the question. Mark given where the work presented is discovered not to be that of the candidate (plagiarised).


Coursework essays: cover sheet and feedback

Stick your name label over this text

Plagiarism is cheating. Plagiarism is the use of someone else's work without proper acknowledgement, presenting it as your own. Any plagiarism discovered in this work will result in a penalty, varying from deduction of marks to more serious disciplinary action, according to the severity of the offence. By attaching this form to your work, you are declaring that this work is free from plagiarism as defined by the college policy: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/registry/exams/examoffences

Marker: Partner/Group (if any)

(Office use only) Work should be returned by:

Complete, gives sufficient relevant information

disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree (Main omissions given below)

Accurate, containing no significant errors

disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree (Main errors given below or on work)

Well organised, consistent

disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Written in good and concise English


Logical, shows comprehension or

application disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Analytical, critical, describes limitations, argues points disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Synthetic, bringing together well-chosen,

reliable sources disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Referenced correctly


Good points

What, if anything, was misunderstood or omitted?

Other suggestions for improvement

First mark &

marker’s initials

Second mark &

marker’s initials Agreed mark:

Explanation of agreed mark

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/registry/exams/examoffences


Laboratory reports: assessment criteria These criteria are used to assess all laboratory work during your degree course, from first year to final year practical classes.

Account is taken of the relevant year of the degree programme, the nature of the work, and the instructions provided. Due

allowance is made for what is reasonably achievable under laboratory conditions and in the time available. Marks may be

deducted for failure to attend all or part of a laboratory class.

Footnotes: Analytical = breaking a concept down into its parts and examining their inter-relationships, e.g. comparing and contrasting two

models. Critical = judging a hypothesis or conclusion by examining the validity of the evidence presented for it, e.g. evaluating two competing

models. Outside reading – for first- and second-year students, textbooks are an acceptable source of outside reading; for final-year students,

outside reading should normally come from journal articles or other peer-reviewed publications. Comprehension = understanding of the

meaning of information, e.g. explaining how one concept follows logically from another.

Class % Criteria 1st 100 Report demonstrates complete command of the background and context of the work, gives an

accurate and logical account of the methods, presents and analyses the results with clarity, correctly applies any necessary mathematical/statistical techniques to the results, and provides very good independent analytical* and critical* treatment when discussing the methods, results, implications and limitations (with evidence of substantial outside reading* where appropriate).

95

90

85 Practical completed successfully and report very well presented, without significant deficiencies. Consistently analytical and critical treatment of methods, results, implications, and limitations. Evidence of outside reading* where appropriate. 80

76 Practical completed successfully and report very well presented, without significant deficiencies. Provides evidence of limited outside reading* and/or some analytical* and critical* treatment of methods, results, implications, and limitations. 72

2A 68 Report is complete and mainly accurate, without significant errors of understanding or calculation, demonstrating comprehension* of the context, methods and limitations of the work. Results are presented clearly. N.B. Reports must be written concisely to attain a 2A mark or higher.

65

62

2B 58 Report (i) shows a reasonable grasp of the background and context of the work, and (ii) gives an accurate account of most of the experimental procedures and results, but (iii) does not go beyond that, or does go beyond it but is marred by omissions or significant errors that indicate a lack of clear understanding of the techniques used. N.B. Reports that are too long and/or poorly written are unlikely to be marked above a 2B.

55

52

3rd 48 Report (i) shows only a relatively weak grasp of the background and context of the work and (ii) contains major errors or omissions, but (iii) presents a mainly accurate account of at least a third of the experimental procedures and results. 45

42

Fail 38 Work (i) shows partial understanding of the experiment and (ii) presents less than a third of the experimental procedures and results.

35

30

25 Report is (i) too inaccurate, irrelevant, or brief to indicate more than a vague understanding of the practical and (ii) presents only about a quarter of the procedures and results

20

15 Report presents only two or three concepts or facts that are relevant and correct.

10

5 Practical attempted, but no relevant experimental procedures, results or discussion.

0 Practical not attempted, work not handed in or contains nothing correct that is relevant. Mark given where the work presented is discovered not to be that of the candidate (plagiarised). Further disciplinary action is usually taken in cases of plagiarism.


Laboratory reports: cover sheet and feedback


Plagiarism is cheating. Plagiarism is the use of someone else's work without proper acknowledgement, presenting it as your own. Any plagiarism discovered in this work will result in a penalty, varying from deduction of marks to more serious disciplinary action, according to the severity of the offence. By attaching this form to your work, you are declaring that this work is free from plagiarism as defined by the college policy: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/registry/exams/examoffences



Complete, with sufficient detail of methods/results disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree (Main omissions given below)

Accurate, free from errors in understanding/calculation disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

(Main errors given below or on work)

Well organised; results presented clearly




Logical, shows comprehension of context,

methods & limitations disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Analytical & critical when handling methods, results, implications & limitations disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Places work in context; clear use of outside reading


Referenced correctly


Good points

What, if anything, was misunderstood, omitted or apparently carried out incorrectly?


First mark &

marker’s initials

Second mark &





Presentations: assessment criteria These criteria are used to assess all oral presentations during your degree course, including those for final-year

Research Reviews and Research Projects. Account is taken of the relevant year of the degree programme, the

teaching of the subject, the instructions provided for the work and the type of presentation. Allowance is made for

what is reasonably achievable under the conditions of the presentation (resources available, time allowed, whether

group or individual presentation, etc.).

Footnotes: Background reading – For first- and second-year students, the sources suggested by the lecturer should suffice; final-year students should generally look to supplement this from journal articles or other peer-reviewed publications. Analytical = breaking a concept down into its parts and examining their inter-relationships, e.g. comparing and contrasting two models. Critical = judging a hypothesis or conclusion by examining the validity of the evidence presented for it, e.g. evaluating two competing models. Synthetic = integrating concepts from several sources. e.g. discussing relevant background reading, or combining material across several lectures or courses into a coherent or original whole.

Class % Criteria 1st 100 Presentation does an excellent job of communicating a very substantial body of scientific information.

The presenter held the audience’s attention, showed command of the relevant concepts and facts, spoke authoritatively and without obvious notes, showed evidence of substantial background reading* (where appropriate), provided a consistently analytical*, critical* and/or synthetic* treatment of the information (where relevant), gave excellent answers to questions, and showed fluency in the use of any teaching aids (PowerPoint, demonstrations, handouts, PRS clickers, etc). Any visual aids were conference-level.

95

90

85 Presentation does an excellent job of communicating a very substantial body of scientific information. It meets all of the criteria for a mark of 68, as well as meeting most but not all of the criteria for a mark of 90+. 80

76 Presentation does an excellent job of communicating a very substantial body of scientific information. It meets all the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as meeting one or a few of the qualities of a 90+ presentation. 72

2A 68 Presentation very effectively communicates a significant body of scientific information, being a logically-structured exposition enabling the audience to appreciate the significance of the material presented. Presentations in this range would generally be expected to show the following characteristics: appropriate background reading*, good critical*, analytical* or synthetic* treatment of the information, no evidence of significant errors of understanding during the talk or in answers to questions, used resources well, spoke without detailed notes, little or no hesitation, and kept more or less to time.

65

62

2B 58 Presentation successfully communicates a significant body of scientific information. It is a mostly accurate account of most of the expected relevant material, showing evidence of some background reading* and adequate preparation, but is marred by confused sections, poor use of resources, over-run, omissions, errors, hesitation, irrelevance (e.g. slides that do not add value), over-reliance on non-primary sources, or by reading from notes.

55

52

3rd 48 Presentation achieves only limited communication of scientific information, containing major errors or omissions. Presenter delivers a mainly accurate account of at least a third of the expected relevant material, showing a generally weak understanding and evidence of little background reading* or preparation.

45

42

Fail 38 Presentation fails to communicate any significant scientific information. Presenter demonstrates understanding of less than a third of the expected relevant material (either through errors, through lack of preparation, or by omission). 35

30

25 Presentation fails to communicate scientific information and is on balance misleading. It shows understanding of less than a quarter of the expected relevant material, but is so inaccurate and/or irrelevant that it succeeds only in misinforming and confusing the audience. 20

15 Presentation includes very little that is correct and relevant.

10

5

0 Presentation not given.


Presentations: feedback

Student: Presentation date:


Complete, communicating much scientific information


Accurate, no significant errors

disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree (Main errors given below)

Well-structured, relevant, kept to time


Authoritative & engaging; no hesitation or over-

reliance on notes disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Well-researched, appropriately referenced

and well-prepared disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Analytical & critical


Used any teaching aids/visual aids well


Answered questions well, showing good knowledge of background and detail disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Good points

What, if anything, was misunderstood, presented incorrectly or omitted?


First mark &

marker’s initials

Second mark &




Final-year Research Project and Literature Project oral vivas: assessment criteria These criteria are used to assess oral vivas of final-year practical Research Projects and Literature Projects.

Footnotes: Analytical = breaking a concept down into its parts and examining their inter-relationships, e.g. comparing and contrasting two models. Critical = judging a hypothesis or conclusion by examining the validity of the evidence presented for it, e.g. evaluating two competing models. Synthetic = integrating concepts from several sources. e.g. discussing relevant background reading, or combining material into a coherent or original whole.

Final-year Research Project and Literature Project presentation and oral viva: report

Student name

Class % Criteria 1st 100 The student did an excellent job of communicating a very substantial body of scientific information. The

student gave accurate and logical answers, showed command of the relevant concepts and facts, spoke authoritatively, showed abundant evidence of knowledge and understanding beyond that which had been provided in the dissertation and /or presentation, provided a consistently analytical*, critical* and/or synthetic* treatment information in their answers (where relevant). The student demonstrated an appreciation of the limitations of the experimental or other procedures, and showed clear and possibly novel insight into the subject. The student was able robustly to defend criticism of the strategy, ideas or information provided in the dissertation and / or the presentation.

95

90

85 The student did an excellent job of communicating a very substantial body of scientific information. They met all of the criteria for a mark of 68, as well as meeting most but not all of the criteria for a mark of 90+. 80

76 The student did an excellent job of communicating a very substantial body of scientific information. They met all the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as meeting one or a few of the qualities of a 90+ presentation. 72

2A 68 The student effectively communicated a significant body of scientific information, enabling the examiner to appreciate the significance of the material presented. Vivas in this range would generally be expected to show the following characteristics: good evidence of knowledge and understanding beyond that which had been provided in the dissertation and /or presentation, good critical*, analytical* or synthetic* ability in developing answers to questions, no evidence of significant errors of understanding during answers to questions, sound knowledge of how the study fits in to the relevant literature and some ability to defend criticism of the strategy, ideas or information provided in the dissertation and / or presentation.

65

62

2B 58 The student successfully communicated a body of scientific information. The viva revealed a mostly accurate understanding of the material presented in the dissertation and / or presentation, showing evidence of adequate preparation, but was marred by some confused answers, omissions, errors, hesitation or irrelevance. There was little evidence of knowledge and understanding beyond that which had been provided in the dissertation and / or presentation.

55

52

3rd 48 The student achieved only limited communication of scientific information, with major errors or omissions. The student demonstrated an understanding of at least a third of the material presented in the dissertation and / or presentation, but showed little evidence of preparation. There was no evidence of knowledge and understanding beyond that which had been provided in the dissertation and / or presentation.

45

42

Fail 38 The student failed to communicate any significant scientific information. The student demonstrated understanding of less than a third of the material presented in the dissertation and / or presentation (either through errors, or by omission). 35

30

25 The student failed to communicate scientific information and was on balance misleading. They demonstrated understanding of less than a quarter of the material presented in the dissertation and / or presentation, but answers were so inaccurate and/or irrelevant that they succeeded only in largely misinforming and confusing the examiner.

20

15 The student provided few or no answers that were correct and relevant.

10

5

0 Viva not attended.


Project Title

First Examiner's name

Second Examiner's name

Date

Presentation

Statement of aims incoherent □ □ □ □ □ very clear

Development of plan or theme unclear □ □ □ □ □ very clear and logical

Structure of presentation badly disorganised □ □ □ □ □ logical and well organised

Amount of material too little, too superficial □ □ □ □ □ appropriate

Quality of text on slides too much, cannot read □ □ □ □ □ high impact, excellent visibility

Diagrams and images irrelevant / poor quality □ □ □ □ □ highly relevant, excellent quality

Emphasis of important points unclear □ □ □ □ □ clearly done

Summary/conclusion absent □ □ □ □ □ concise and appropriate

Timekeeping poor □ □ □ □ □ excellent

Audibility too quiet, monotone □ □ □ □ □ clear and lively and varied tone

Rapport with audience poor □ □ □ □ □ lively and good eye contact

Presentation - Good points

Presentation - What, if anything, was misunderstood or omitted?

First mark &

marker’s initials

Second mark &

marker’s initials Agreed Mark:


Please Turn Over for Viva assessment

Viva


Discussion of aims of the project confused □ □ □ □ □ extensive

Discussion of results shallow □ □ □ □ □ extensive

Understanding of methods shallow □ □ □ □ □ extensive

Understanding of theory associated with project shallow □ □ □ □ □ extensive

Broader understanding of the subject area shallow □ □ □ □ □ extensive

Understanding of ‘core’ or ‘basic’ material shallow □ □ □ □ □ extensive

Scientific rigour weak □ □ □ □ □ strict

Ideas for further research none □ □ □ □ □ plenty

Viva - Good points

Viva - What, if anything, was misunderstood or omitted?

First mark &

marker’s initials

Second mark &

marker’s initials Agreed Mark:



Posters: assessment criteria These criteria are to be used for posters, including the mini-poster for the final year Research Project. Allowances

will be made for what can reasonably be expected for the year of the degree: a poster of final year standard will not

be expected from a first year student.

Footnotes: Background reading – For first- and second-year students, the sources suggested by the lecturer should suffice; final-year students should generally look to supplement this from journal articles or other peer-reviewed publications. Analytical = breaking a concept down into its parts and examining their inter-relationships, e.g. comparing and contrasting two models. Critical = judging a hypothesis or conclusion by examining the validity of the evidence presented for it, e.g. evaluating two competing models. Synthetic = integrating concepts from several sources. e.g. discussing relevant background reading, or combining material across several lectures or courses into a coherent or original whole.

Class % Criteria 1st 100 Poster does an excellent job of communicating the most important scientific information. It presents

the information in an eye-catching and visually attractive way. The material is laid out cleanly, logically and accessibly. Images (where present) are of high quality. The content of the poster has been well researched and correctly referenced. The presenter(s) of the poster showed command of the relevant concepts and facts when explaining the poster and/or answering questions.

95

90

85 Excellent poster, meeting all the criteria for a mark of 68 and most but not all of the criteria for a mark of 90+.

80

76 Excellent poster, meeting all the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as one or a few of the criteria for a mark of 90+.

72

2A 68 Poster is attractive and laid out in a largely logical fashion, very effectively communicating the significance of a body of scientific information. Posters in this range would generally be expected to show the following characteristics: appropriate background reading*; some critical*, analytical* or synthetic* treatment of the information; no evidence of significant errors of understanding in the poster or when answering questions.

65

62

2B 58 Poster conveys information adequately, but it is marred by omissions or errors, or is laid out in a way that significantly detracts from the content of the poster (e.g. misplaced emphasis). Nonetheless, the poster or its presenter(s) demonstrates understanding of most of the relevant expected material. 55

52

3rd 48 Poster is marred by major errors, brevity; irrelevance, or poor design (as laid out below); however, either the poster or its presenter(s) demonstrates understanding of at least a third of the expected relevant material. 45

42

Fail 38 Poster demonstrates understanding of less than a third of the expected relevant material, and is marred by major errors, brevity, or inappropriate design. The presenter(s) did not answer questions well enough to convincingly demonstrate adequate knowledge and understanding. 35

30

25 Poster demonstrates understanding of less than a quarter of the expected relevant material, whether through omission of material, poor execution (e.g., unlabelled figures) or errors. Typically the poster will show most of the following failings: inadequate graphics, illegibility, overcrowding, large gaps, missing abstract/summary, lack of attention to detail, lack of material.

20

15 Poster is so poor as to indicate its presenter(s) did not understand what a poster is supposed to achieve. Conveys much less than a quarter of the expected relevant material.

10

5

0 Poster not produced.


Posters: feedback

Student: Poster name:


Clearly communicates all key scientific information disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree (Main omissions given below)

Accurate, no significant errors


Logically laid-out and easy to follow


Eye-catching and visually appealing


Well-researched, appropriately referenced

and well-prepared disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Analytical, critical and synthetic


Poster or presenter shows understanding of the topic


Presenter explained the poster well and answered

questions fully disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Good points



First mark &

marker’s initials

Second mark &




Dissertations (including second-year Tutored Dissertation and final-year Literature

Project): assessment criteria These criteria are for 2nd-year Tutored Dissertations by Biology students, Critical Reviews for Year in Europe/Industry

students, and final-year Literature Projects. Outside reading is fundamental in dissertations, forming most of the

expected relevant material, so is not mentioned explicitly below. Textbooks may be a useful start for Tutored

Dissertations, but most outside reading should be from the peer-reviewed literature, including primary research

papers. Allowance will be made for the student’s year of study and, for placements, the placement duration.

Footnotes: Analytical = breaking a concept down into its parts and examining their inter-relationships, e.g. comparing and contrasting two models. Critical = judging a hypothesis or conclusion by examining the validity of the evidence presented for it, e.g. evaluating two competing models. Synthetic = integrating concepts from several sources into a coherent or original whole

Class % Criteria 1st 100 Dissertation is of sufficient quality and scientific novelty to submit to an international peer-reviewed

journal.

95 Dissertation is a succinct survey of the most important relevant primary literature, with thoughtful selection of relevant material and real attention to detail (in references, figures, etc.). The dissertation provides consistently analytical* and critical* treatment of the information and independently synthesises a structured argument and/or novel testable hypothesis. Any necessary mathematical, statistical or bioinformatic techniques are described logically and applied knowledgeably, and any results or meta-analyses are presented in a publishable format.

90

85 Dissertation meets all the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as meeting most but not all of the criteria for a mark of 90+.

80

76 Dissertation meets all the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as meeting one or a few of the criteria for a mark of 90+.

72

2A 68 Dissertation is a very good, logically structured exposition of the subject, showing a clear grasp of the relevant concepts and facts. It provides some critical*, analytical* or synthetic* treatment of the information and is well-presented. N.B. Dissertations must be written concisely with appropriate and basically correct use of references to attain a 2A mark or higher

65

62

2B 58 Dissertation gives a good and mostly accurate account of most of the subject area, showing a grasp of the basic concepts and facts, but does not go beyond that or goes beyond it but is marred by significant errors. Dissertations in this range are likely to show fairly extensive reliance on non-primary sources (e.g. reviews), and a lack of insight into or failure to comprehend parts of the subject matter. N.B. Dissertations that are too long, poorly written, and/or that show inappropriate and/or incorrect use of references are unlikely to be marked above a 2B.

55

52

3rd 48 Dissertation is just acceptable, demonstrating basic understanding of more than a third of the expected amount of relevant material, but does not identify and use sufficient relevant source material, and/or presents material in an inconsistent, incomplete, incorrect or unscientific way. Dissertations in this range are likely to lack clear structure, to be written in an unscientific style, and to be marred by significant errors.

45

42

Fail 38 Dissertation demonstrates understanding of less than a third of the expected amount of relevant material, because of brevity, misunderstanding and/or errors in presentation. It shows insufficient understanding of the literature for degree level. 35

30

25 Dissertation demonstrates understanding of less than a quarter of the expected amount of relevant material, because of brevity, misunderstanding and/or errors in presentation.

20

15 Dissertation contains only a few sentences that are correct and relevant to the subject.

10

5

0 Dissertation not handed in or contains nothing of relevance to the subject.


Second-year Tutored Dissertation: Tutor’s feedback

Student: Dissertation:

Tutor/Supervisor: Date

Dates of meetings:

Complete, no significant omissions




Well structured, relevant, concise and neat


Written in good English with clear, informative

figures/tables disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Logical explanations; shows comprehension, application or insight


Analytical & critical treatment of material


Provides an independent synthesis of material


Well-researched and correctly-referenced


Good points



Please use table overleaf for mark awarded and signature


Students are not given their marks immediately and DO NOT SEE this side of the sheet.

This side is for comments regarding moderation or agreement of marks.

Tutor/Supervisor mark Tutor/Supervisor

initials

Agreed mark Second marker’s

initials


Second-year Tutored Dissertation: Second Marker’s feedback

Student: Dissertation:

Second Marker: Date

Complete, no significant omissions




Well structured, relevant, concise and neat


Written in good English with clear, informative

figures/tables disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Logical explanations; shows comprehension, application or insight


Analytical & critical treatment of material


Provides an independent synthesis of material


Well-researched and correctly-referenced


Good points



Please use table overleaf for mark awarded and signature


Students are not given their marks immediately and DO NOT SEE this side of the sheet.

This side is for comments regarding moderation or agreement of marks.

Second Marker mark Second Marker initials

Agreed mark Tutor/Supervisor

initials


Final-year Literature Project thesis: Supervisor/Examiner's report Student name

Project Title

Supervisor/Examiner's name

Date

Presentation messy, poor English □ □ □ □ □ publication standard

Abstract wholly inadequate □ □ □ □ □ publication standard

Introduction trivial □ □ □ □ □ publishable

Literature coverage very shallow □ □ □ □ □ extensive and deep

Accuracy of the information major errors and omissions □ □ □ □ □ full command of the material

Figures/legends/tables wholly inadequate □ □ □ □ □ perfectly clear, complete

Discussion very shallow □ □ □ □ □ publication standard

References wholly inadequate □ □ □ □ □ fully accurate

Analytical skills poor □ □ □ □ □ outstanding

Critical analysis very shallow □ □ □ □ □ outstanding

Understanding/insight very little □ □ □ □ □ research level

Scientific rigor weak □ □ □ □ □ strict

Originality of expression derivative □ □ □ □ □ innovative/highly original

Good points


Mark & initials:


Research project theses (including final-year Research Project): assessment criteria These criteria are to be used for final-year Research Projects and Year in Europe Scientific Reports. Outside reading is

fundamental when writing up a research project, so is not mentioned explicitly in the criteria that follow. Most

outside reading should be from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including primary research papers.

Footnotes: Scientific style – Research projects should be written in clear, direct scientific English. Aim to be precise, concise and dispassionate but do not omit important details.

Class % Criteria 1st 100 Thesis is of sufficient quality to submit for publication to an international peer-reviewed journal

(assuming, ideally, that positive and negative results have equal merit).

95 Thesis is close to a publishable standard, containing a succinct survey of the most important primary literature and an accurate and logical account and justification of the methods used. It presents the results in a publishable format, and knowledgeably applies any necessary mathematical and/or statistical techniques. Discussion of results demonstrates high levels of rigour and critical ability in the context of the relevant literature. Thesis demonstrates an appreciation the limitations of the experimental or other procedures, shows attention to detail (in references, figures, etc.), and shows clear and possibly novel insight into the subject.

90

85 Excellent thesis, meeting all of the criteria for a mark of 68 and most but not all of the criteria for a mark of 90+.

80

76 Excellent thesis, meeting all the criteria for a mark of 68 and one or a few of the criteria for a mark of 90+.

72

2A 68 Very good, well-structured thesis written concisely in good scientific style* and showing the following features: (i) an ability to carry out experimental procedures successfully to generate original results (which may be negative and need not be novel); (ii) a very good understanding of the study design and the methods used to generate and analyse the data; (iii) appropriate – if not high-level – analyses; (iv) clear presentation of results; (v) sound knowledge of how the study fits in to the relevant literature; (vi) some critical interpretation of the results and the study overall.

65

62

2B 58 Good thesis showing the following features: (i) an ability to follow experimental procedures; (ii) basic understanding of the relevant concepts and methods; (iii) mostly logical structure and scientific style; (iv) reasonable interpretation of the data or information collected; and (iv) a reasonable attempt to relate the results to the contemporary literature. N.B. Theses that are too long, poorly written, and/or that show poor use of references are unlikely to be marked above a 2B.

55

52

3rd 48 Acceptable thesis showing the following features: (i) an ability to follow some experimental procedures; (ii) a weak grasp of most of the relevant concepts and methods; (iii) need for close guidance in design and interpretation; and (iv) at best limited relation of the results to the relevant literature. Research projects in this bracket are likely to be marred by significant errors, important omissions, brevity and/or a failure to interpret the data critically.

45

42

Fail 38 Poor thesis showing the following features: (i) understanding of less than half of the theoretical basis of the project; (ii) evidence of widespread difficulty following procedures to generate and analyse data; (iii) need for complete instruction in design and interpretation; (iv) does not relate the outcome of the experimental work to the literature.

35

30

25 Thesis contains more than a few relevant sentences but shows very little understanding of the background to the project, the project design, or the methods used to generate or analyse the data. Students in this bracket are unlikely to have been able to carry out even basic procedures, despite proper instruction.

20

15 Thesis contains only a few sentences relevant to the subject, and does not contain any interpretable results.

10

5

0 Thesis contains nothing relevant or was not submitted.


Final-year Research Project thesis: Examiner’s report

Student name

Project Title

Examiner's name

Date





Description of aims wholly inadequate □ □ □ □ □ perfectly clear

Materials and methods wholly inadequate □ □ □ □ □ perfectly clear

Description of results wholly inadequate □ □ □ □ □ perfectly clear


Quality of data poor □ □ □ □ □ new and publishable

Analysis of data very shallow □ □ □ □ □ full stats, etc






Good points


Mark & initials:


Final-year Research Project lab/field-work: assessment criteria

Class % Criteria 1st 100 Student worked safely, confidently, diligently, and designed appropriate investigations. Student

developed a high level of technical expertise. Student kept supervisor informed of progress, but consistently showed initiative and did not require micromanagement. Student contributed very positively to the research group.

95

90

85 Student met all of the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as most of the criteria for a mark of 90+

80

76 Student met all of the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as one or a few of the criteria for a mark of 90+.

72

2A 68 Student's lab or field work was performed competently. The student contributed meaningfully to the experimental design, worked reasonably hard, picked up procedures well, and was able to work largely independently. 65

62

2B 58 Student's lab or field work was performed safely throughout. The student had some input into experimental design and worked reasonably hard. The student was able to work usefully with only day-to-day supervision from anyone. 55

52

3rd 48 Student showed some ability to follow experimental procedures without close supervision and appreciated safety aspects, but the work was small in quantity and poorly executed. Student's input into experimental design was minimal. 45

42

Fail 38 Student worked for up to a half of the expected time and worked safely/adequately only when very closely supervised. Student showed very little or no initiative or independence.

35

30

25 Student attended the laboratory of field site for up to a third of the expected time and performed some work safely/adequately but only when micromanaged. Very little useful work completed.

20

15 Student attended the laboratory or field site but either attended for less than a quarter of the expected time or worked in an unsafe or otherwise wholly unsatisfactory fashion despite proper instruction. Negligible amount of work completed. 10

5

0 Student did not attend the laboratory or field site, was barred for preventable reasons (e.g., an unacceptable attitude to safety), or was found to have fabricated results.


Final-year Research Project thesis and lab/field-work performance: Supervisor’s report

Student name

Project Title

Supervisor name

Date

Thesis





Description of aims wholly inadequate □ □ □ □ □ perfectly clear

Materials and methods wholly inadequate □ □ □ □ □ perfectly clear

Description of results wholly inadequate □ □ □ □ □ perfectly clear


Quality of data poor □ □ □ □ □ new and publishable

Analysis of data very shallow □ □ □ □ □ full stats, etc






Good points


Mark & initials:

Please Turn Over for assessment of laboratory performance


Lab/field-work performance

How diligently did the student work? indolently □ □ □ □ □ intensively

How well did the student plan/design the experiments slapdash □ □ □ □ □ research level

How well were the experimental methods and results documented (e.g. in lab book)? slapdash □ □ □ □ □ research level

How well did the student observe the relevant safety procedures (e.g. wear lab coat)? never □ □ □ □ □ always

How accurate was the student’s experimental technique? slapdash □ □ □ □ □ research level

How well did the student interpret the data? poorly □ □ □ □ □ research level

Quantity of work done very little □ □ □ □ □ A great deal

Comments

Mark & initials:


Final year Literature Project Lay Summary for Science Communication: assessment

criteria A 300 word synopsis of the final year literature report which is written for the adult general public (presumed to a

broadsheet newspaper reader with a basic grasp of science).

Class % Criteria 1st 100 The summary is audience-appropriate and gives a masterful synopsis of the literature report, showing

total command of the most salient concepts and facts to be put across and is written in clear, engaging

prose.

95

90

85

80 The summary meets all the requirements describe above but shows very minor deficiencies in one

aspect. 76

72

2A 68 The summary gives a well-organised and audience-appropriate synopsis of the literature report. It

demonstrates a mostly accurate account of the most salient concepts and facts to be put across and is

written in clear prose. It lacks significant errors of understanding.

65

62

2B 58 The summary delivers a largely accurate synopsis of the literature report or, while accurate, is written

in a style that is not completely suited to the target audience, or is marred by defective organisation,

omissions or errors that indicate a lack of clear understanding of the purpose of the lay summary.

55

52

3rd 48 The summary is not audience-appropriate in style or is poorly organised or fails to highlight the salient

concepts and facts from the literature report. 45

42

Fail 38 The summary is not audience-appropriate and fails to include the salient points of the literature report.

It lacks clarity and is marred by major errors, brevity, and/or irrelevance. 35

30

25 The summary is too inaccurate, irrelevant, or brief to indicate more than a vague understanding of the

topic or of the audience. 20

15 The summary presents less than three relevant sentences and is too inaccurate, irrelevant, or brief to

indicate more than a vague understanding of the topic or of the audience. 10

5

0 The article contains nothing that is both correct and relevant to the literature report. Mark given

where the work presented is discovered not to be that of the candidate (plagiarised).


Final year Literature Project Lay Summary for Science Communication: report


Plagiarism is cheating. Plagiarism is the use of someone else's work without proper acknowledgement, presenting it as your own. Any plagiarism discovered in this work will result in a penalty, varying from deduction of marks to more serious disciplinary action, according to the severity of the offence. By submitting this form with your article, you are declaring that your contribution to the article is free from plagiarism as defined by the college policy: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/registry/exams/examoffences

Marker: Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/


Complete, gives sufficient relevant information






Pitched appropriately to expected audience(s)


Good points

What, if anything, was omitted from the content, or poorly implemented?

First mark &

marker’s initials

Second mark &




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-cresol_dehydrogenase_(hydroxylating)


Year in Industry placement account: assessment criteria Allowances will be made for whether the student was in the second or third year of the degree programme when

the placement was completed and whether the placement was for a period of six months or a year.

Class % Criteria 1st 100 Placement account shows that the student has taken full advantage of all training opportunities

offered by the employing institution, has undertaken independent initiatives to obtain further training or scientific work during the placement, and can communicate scientific information about work carried out during the placement in a consistently engaging style appropriate to the nature of the work and the information obtained.

95

90

85 Placement account meets all of the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as fully meeting two of the criteria for a mark of 90+ or partially meeting all three.

80

76 Placement account meets all of the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as fully meeting one of the criteria for a mark of 90+ or partially meeting two.

72

2A 68 Placement account shows that the student has completed the programme of scientific work allocated to them by the employing institution, acquired the skills and experience appropriate to that work, and has provided a clear, structured and scientific account of the work carried out during the placement, in an appropriate style. N.B. Placement accounts must be written concisely with appropriate and basically correct use of references to attain a 2A mark or higher

65

62

2B 58 Placement account shows that the student has at least very nearly completed the programme of scientific work allocated to them by the employing institution, acquired most of the skills and experience appropriate to the work, and has provided a clear account of the work carried out during the placement, written in an appropriate style. N.B. Placement accounts that are too long, poorly written, and/or that show inappropriate and/or incorrect use of references are unlikely to be marked above a 2B.

55

52

3rd 48 Placement account shows that the student has completed satisfactorily most of the programme of scientific work allocated to them by the employing institution (circumstances outside the student’s control should be taken account) has acquired some of the scientific, organisational or other relevant skills and experience during the placement, and has provided a basic if flawed account of the work carried out during the placement.

45

42

Fail 38 Placement account contains less than a third of the expected relevant material about the placement, shows no more than a slight understanding of the scientific background, shows that some but not most of the programme of scientific work was completed satisfactorily (circumstances outside the student’s control should be taken into account), and does not demonstrate the acquisition of relevant skills.

35

30

25 Placement account contains less than a quarter of the expected relevant material about the placement, and shows very little or no understanding of the scientific background.

20

15 Placement account contains only a few relevant sentences about the placement.

10

5

0 No placement account was submitted, or the account contains nothing relevant to the work carried out during the placement.


Year in Europe cultural report: assessment criteria The cultural report is on a specific topic related to any aspect of the cultural life (social, artistic, political, economic)

of the country or region the student is in.

Footnotes: Analytical = breaking a concept down into its parts and examining their inter-relationships, e.g. comparing and contrasting two models. Critical = judging a hypothesis or conclusion by examining the validity of the evidence presented for it, e.g. evaluating two competing models. Synthetic = integrating concepts from several sources. e.g. discussing relevant outside reading, or combining material across several lectures or courses into a coherent or original whole.

Class % Criteria 1st 100 Cultural report is of publishable quality, and is written in the style of an authoritative article in a

'quality' newspaper or magazine (e.g. The Times, Guardian, Economist).

95 Cultural report is a comprehensive survey of the relevant literature, with thoughtful selection of relevant material (at least some of which is primary) and consistent attention to detail (in references, figures, etc.). The cultural report demonstrates a consistently analytical* or critical* treatment of the information and independently synthesises a structured argument.

90

85 Cultural report meets all of the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as most of the criteria for a mark of 90+.

80

76 Cultural report meets all of the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as one or a few criteria for a mark of 90+.

72

2A 68 Cultural report is a very good exposition of the subject, showing the following attributes: (i) logical structure; (ii) appropriate writing style; (iii) disciplined exploration and use of literature sources; and (iv) some critical*, analytical* or synthetic* treatment of the information. N.B. Cultural reports must be written concisely with appropriate and basically correct use of references to attain a 2A mark or higher

65

62

2B 58 Cultural report gives a largely complete account of the subject area, showing at least limited understanding of most of the material. Reports in this bracket are likely to show evidence of extensive reliance on non-primary sources (e.g. books, magazines, newspapers), and of lack of insight into or failure to comprehend parts of the subject matter. N.B. Cultural reports that are too long, poorly written, and/or that show inappropriate and/or incorrect acknowledgement of sources are unlikely to be marked above a 2B.

55

52

3rd 48 Cultural report is acceptable, with more than half of the expected amount of content, but does not identify and use sufficient relevant source material, and/or presents them in an inconsistent, incomplete or imprecise way. Reports in this bracket are likely to lack clear structure, to be written in an inappropriate style, and to be marred by significant errors.

45

42

Fail 38 Cultural report has less than half of the expected amount of content and shows little understanding of the literature. Reports in this bracket or below are likely to have been carelessly produced and poorly referenced. 35

30

25 Cultural report contains more than a few correct relevant sentences, but is unacceptably brief, shows very little understanding of the literature and is very poorly referenced.

20

15 Cultural report contains only a few correct relevant sentences.

10

5

0 Cultural report not submitted or contains nothing correct that is of relevance to the subject.

marking criteria & feedback forms 2015-16 …...department of life sciences (biology and...

Documents